On Apr 17, 8:52*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/17/11 09:29 , Gary Forbis wrote:





On Apr 17, 6:13 am, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 4/16/11 23:44 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 11:02 pm, "D. Peter * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 22:37 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 10:26 pm, "D. Peter * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 20:08 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 8:03 pm, "D. Peter * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 15:43 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:02 pm, "D. Peter * * * * *wrote:
On 4/16/11 10:55 , Nickname unavailable wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:55 am, Gary * * * * * *wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:29 am, Barack Hates * * * * * *wrote:

Obama and his band of liberal fools will dismiss this like they do
anything thats true

You realize it is a work of fiction don't you?

* * * *and its a poor one at that. written by a drugged up sex maniac, that
worshiped serial killers. then ended up living on the socialist dole
its easy to start a cult in america, any demagogue can do it, look at
limpballs and beck. america has a lot of people will malformed brains,
lacking the gray matter necessary in the part of the brain that can
understand complex situations. so they flock to cranks, hoping for
some direction in life.

* * * * And there you have it. No substance, only adhoms.

* * * * No impact, here.

* * * i cannot help what shape your brain is in, its a retardation, it
might be environmental, or genes, its hard to say. but its been quite
well reported what rand was. its just to complex for you to
understand.

snicker, i have always felt this was the case:
A new study shows liberals have more gray matter in a part of the
brain related to understanding complexity, while the conservative
brain is bigger in the section linked to fear:How Your Brain May Be
Different Than a Conservative's

* * * *Try making an actual case, instead of simply making a personal
insult.

* * *i did, and your response proves all of my points. none of what i said
were insults, it was all facts.

* * * LOL!

* * giggling is a sign you know

* * *Giggling is a sign that you've done nothing but levelled personal
insults, and defended that as a rational argument.

* * *Knowing that you're as empty as your handle is quite amusing.

* * *Carry on.

* *i posted lots of empirical evidence what rand was.

* * All of it personal insults. What you do not do, is debate the
content, nor the ideas.

* * You simply insult the person.

* * The USENet equivalent of "So's your old man." You either have no
position of substance, or you're not willing to engage one for fear
of defeat in the arena of ideas.

In the case of Rand one has to debate philosophy becuase there
is no substance.

* *Of course. Why am I not surprised. Deny the substance of the
argument, default to personal insult.

So why did you delete all but the first sentence? Could it be because
I provided facts to support my claims concerning her philosophy?
Do you understand that a work of fiction doesn't have substance to it?
Fiction can provide an argument for a position but that position is
philosophic
not factual. There was No Dagny Taggart. There was no John Galt.
One cannot argue facts about them other than as presented in the
novel.
No conclusion in the world can be based upon anything happening to
them. At best one could look for actual cases and map them onto
these fictional characters like one would do with "The Carpetbaggers".